Effect of different phenylephrine bolus doses for treatment of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia in patients undergoing elective caesarean section

Comparison of the effect of different doses of phenylephrine infusion on the prevention of hypotension in the elderly under spinal anaesthesia in orthopaedic surgery

BACKGROUND

Considering the vasopressor drug categories and doses that can be used for elderly patients following hypotension are few, the present trial aimed to compare the effect of different doses of phenylephrine infusion on the prevention of hypotension in elderly patients undergoing orthopaedic lower extremities surgery.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind prospective clinical trial was conducted by including 60 elderly patients older than 60 years and classified as American Society of Anesthesiology class I and II who were candidates for femur fracture fixation surgery. White and black cards randomly allocated patients to: group A (25µg/kg/h phenylephrine) or group B (35µg/kg/h phenylephrine).

RESULTS

At the T3-T7 time points, group A's systolic and diastolic blood pressure was significantly higher than in group B's (p < 0.05). However, after 27 minutes (T0-T7) of phenylephrine infusion, statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups regarding blood pressure (T8-Tend). The frequency of bradycardia and reactive hypertension in group B were significantly higher than in group A (p = 0.02) and (p = 0.03), respectively. There was no significant difference between the bleeding loss, blood transfusion and crystalloid volume in both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our trial illustrated that high-dose phenylephrine infusion could not assure haemodynamic stability and may cause some side effects.

Perioperative hypotension and use of vasoactive agents in non-cardiac surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Perioperative hypotension is common and associated with adverse patient outcomes. Vasoactive agents are often used to manage hypotension, but the ideal drug, dose and duration of treatment has not been established. With this scoping review, we aim to provide an overview of the current body of evidence regarding the vasoactive agents used to treat perioperative hypotension in non-cardiac surgery.

METHODS

We included all studies describing the use of vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension in non-cardiac surgery. We excluded literature reviews, case studies, and studies on animals and healthy subjects. We posed the following research questions: (1) in which surgical populations have vasoactive agents been studied? (2) which agents have been studied? (3) what doses have been assessed? (4) what is the duration of treatment? and (5) which desirable and undesirable outcomes have been assessed?

RESULTS

We included 124 studies representing 10 surgical specialties. Eighteen different agents were evaluated, predominantly phenylephrine, ephedrine, and noradrenaline. The agents were administered through six different routes, and numerous comparisons between agents, dosages and routes were included. Then, 88 distinct outcome measures were assessed, of which 54 were judged to be non-patient-centred.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that studies concerning vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension varied considerably in all aspects. Populations were heterogeneous, interventions and exposures included multiple agents compared against themselves, each other, fluids or placebo, and studies reported primarily non-patient-centred outcomes.

Prophylactic norepinephrine combined with 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) co-load infusion for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension during cesarean section: a randomized, controlled, dose-finding trial

PURPOSE

Colloid and/or co-load may be more effective than crystalloid for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension. We tested five different prophylactic norepinephrine dosages combined with colloid co-load infusion in patients receiving cesarean section and spinal anesthesia.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to receive different prophylactic norepinephrine dosages (0 [NE 0 group], 0.025 [NE 25 group], 0.05 [NE 50 group], 0.075 [NE 75 group], or 0.1 [NE 100 group] µg/kg/min) combined with 500 mL 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) immediately following spinal anesthesia (n = 35 per group). The primary endpoint was the incidence of postspinal anesthesia hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 80% of baseline). Secondary endpoints included severe hypotension, bradycardia, nausea or vomiting, hypertension, SBP stability control versus baseline, the 50% (effective dose, ED50) and 90% (ED90) dose effective for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension, Apgar scores, and umbilical cord blood gases.

RESULTS

The incidence of postspinal anesthesia hypotension was 48.6%, 31.3%, 17.1%, 14.3%, and 5.7% in the respective groups. As the prophylactic norepinephrine dosage increased, the incidence of postspinal anesthesia hypotension declined (p < 0.001), and SBP remained stable relative to baseline (median performance error [MDPE], p < 0.001; median absolute performance error [MDAPE], p = 0.001). The ED50 and ED90 values were -0.006 (95% CI -0.046-0.013) and 0.081 (95% CI 0.063-0.119) µg/kg/min. Other endpoints were comparable across the groups.

CONCLUSION

An initial prophylactic norepinephrine dosage of 0.05 µg/kg/min combined with 500 mL 6% hydroxyethyl starch (130/0.4) co-load infusion was optimal for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension during cesarean section.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05133817, registration date: 12 Nov, 2021.

Calculation of effective dose of phenylephrine bolus for treatment of post-spinal hypotension in pre-eclamptic patients undergoing caesarean section - a non-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with pre-eclampsia require smaller vasopressor doses compared with those with normotension for management of post-spinal hypotension during caesarean section. However, the literature has little evidence as to the phenylephrine dose required for patients with pre-eclampsia.

METHODS

Fifty patients, with either pre-eclampsia or normotension, and developing post-spinal hypotension during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, were studied. Women in both groups did not receive prophylactic vasopressors. The first patient in each group received phenylephrine 50 µg to treat the first episode of hypotension, defined as fall of systolic blood pressure ≥20% from baseline or an absolute value <100 mmHg. If hypotension was corrected within one minute it was considered a 'success'. The doses for the subsequent patients were determined by responses to all previous patients, according to a variation of Narayana's rule for the up-down sequential allocation method.

RESULTS

The 95% effective dose (ED95) and 50% effective dose (ED50) of phenylephrine was 41.7 µg (95% CI 33.8 to 49.6 µg) and 29.1 µg (95% CI 26.0 to 32.2 µg) respectively in the pre-eclampsia group, and 64.9 µg (95% CI 54.1 to 75.7 µg) and 47.3 µg (95% CI 39.7 to 54.9 µg) respectively in the normotensive group. The proportionate reduction in phenylephrine dose ranged from 33% (95% CI 18 to 44%) to 40% (95% CI 19 to 52%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with pre-eclampsia may need a 33% to 40% reduction in the first phenylephrine bolus dose, compared with patients with normotension, for the treatment of the first episode of post-spinal hypotension.

Prophylactic Norepinephrine and Phenylephrine Boluses to Prevent Postspinal Anesthesia Hypotension During Cesarean Section: A Randomized Sequential Allocation Dose-Finding Study

Background

Norepinephrine and phenylephrine are widely used for obstetric anesthesia. Our central objective was to determine the ED (effective dose) 90 and potency ratio of prophylactic norepinephrine and phenylephrine boluses for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension during cesarean section.

Methods

Patients scheduled for elective cesarean section (n = 80) were randomly allocated to receive prophylactic norepinephrine (NE) or phenylephrine (PE) boluses immediately after induction of spinal anesthesia. An initial dose of NE (3 μg) and PE (37.5 μg) was given to the first patient, and an up-and-down sequential allocation method was used to determine the next dose level according to the responses (the effectiveness for preventing postspinal anesthesia hypotension [defined as SBP < 80% of baseline value]). Primary outcomes were ED90 and the potency ratio of prophylactic norepinephrine and phenylephrine boluses. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postspinal anesthesia hypotension, severe postspinal anesthesia hypotension, nausea, vomiting, bradycardia, hypertension, umbilical artery blood gas values, and Apgar scores.

Results

The ED90 values for prophylactic norepinephrine and phenylephrine boluses were 8.0 μg (95% CI 7.1-11.0 μg) and 90.9 μg (95% CI 82.0-123.9 μg), respectively. The estimated relative potency ratio was 11.4:1. The incidence of bradycardia was lower in the NE group (2.5% vs 20%, P = 0.034). Other outcomes were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

An 8-μg prophylactic bolus of norepinephrine and a 90-μg prophylactic bolus of phenylephrine can effectively prevent postspinal anesthesia hypotension in patients during cesarean section.

Peri-arrest bolus epinephrine practices amongst pediatric resuscitation experts

Aim

To describe current practices of peri-arrest bolus epinephrine use amongst pediatric resuscitation experts in a multinational survey.

Methods

A 9-question survey was developed and electronically distributed to pediatric critical care physicians who are site investigators for the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Collaborative (pediRES-Q) network. Institutional demographics were collected through the American Hospital Association 2018 Annual Survey and linked to responses. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize closed-ended responses, and qualitative content analysis to analyze open-ended responses.

Results

Of the 63 collaborative members invited to participate, 49 (78%) responded, representing 35 institutions in 9 countries. Forty-six of the 49 respondents (94%) reported that they would consider using peri-arrest bolus epinephrine during critical situations in patients not requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Initial dosing strategies ranged from 0.1mcg/kg to 10mcg/kg, with the most commonly reported initial dose of 1mcg/kg by 25 of the 37 (68%) respondents who answered this question. Three of the 49 (6%) participants indicated that they would generally avoid using peri-arrest bolus epinephrine, citing lack of evidence to support its use.

Conclusions

In this multinational survey of pediatric resuscitation experts, endorsement of peri-arrest bolus epinephrine use was nearly universal, though a few clinicians cited lack of evidence to support this practice. There was a 100-fold difference in the range of initial weight-based doses reported, as well as a minority of clinicians who reported using non-weight-based dosing. Further research is needed to determine best practices, standardization of initial dosing, clinical factors that may warrant dosing modifications and associations with clinically important outcomes.

Efficacy of bolus-dose epinephrine to manage hypotension in the prehospital setting

PURPOSE

Hypotension in the Emergency Department (ED) and the prehospital setting has been associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Limited literature exists exploring the utilization of intravenous (IV) bolus-dose epinephrine (BDE) by Emergency Medical Services (EMS).

METHODS

A retrospective review evaluated patients transported to an academic medical center who had received IV BDE by a single urban EMS system from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcome was to assess the influence IV BDE had on systolic blood pressure (SBP). Secondary objectives were to assess changes in heart rate (HR), the impact of dose variability on SBP, and the incidence of severe hypertension (SBP > 220 mmHg).

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients who received 96 administrations of IV BDE were included in the analysis. The most common individual dose was 10 μg (76.0%) and 45.5% received multiple doses. The median weight-based dose of BDE was 0.14 μg/kg. A significant increase in SBP (median 14.0 mmHg) was noted among all patients following BDE administration compared with baseline (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in HR following BDE compared with baseline (p = 0.375). Those that received a BDE dose >10 μg were noted to have a significantly greater rise in SBP than those that received 10 μg (30.0 mmHg vs. 11.0 mmHg; p = 0.022). Similarly, patients that received a dose ≥0.2 μg/kg had a significantly greater increase in SBP compared with those that received <0.2 μg/kg (30.0 mmHg vs. 10.0 mmHg; p = 0.048). There were no incidences of severe hypertension following therapy.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of IV BDE in the prehospital setting for acute hypotension resulted in a significant rise in SBP. A dose-response relationship was noted both in terms of a flat-based dose and a weight-based dose, with higher doses yielding a greater change in SBP. Additional investigations are necessary to further explore the most appropriate dose of this agent in this setting and its influence, if any, on clinical outcomes.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 125 studies involving 9469 women. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids) Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloid Fewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81; 2009 women; 27 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women; very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.78, 5 studies, 413 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.19, 14 studies, 1058 women, I² = 29%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 10 studies, 730 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrine There were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus control Ondansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus control Lower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lying There was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence). Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections. External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Human Errors and Adverse Hemodynamic Events Related to "Push Dose Pressors" in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Though the use of small bolus doses of vasopressors, termed "push dose pressors," has become common in emergency medicine, data examining this practice are scant. Push dose pressors frequently involve bedside dilution, which may result in errors and adverse events. The objective of this study was to assess for instances of human error and adverse hemodynamic events during push dose pressor use in the emergency department.

METHODS

This was a structured chart and video review of all patients age ≥ 16 years undergoing resuscitation and receiving push dose pressors from a single center from January 2010 to November 2017. Push dose pressors were defined as intended intravenous boluses of phenylephrine (any dose) or epinephrine (≤ 100 mcg).

RESULTS

A total of 249 patients were analyzed. Median age was 60 years (range, 16-97), 58% were male, 49% survived to discharge. Median initial epinephrine dose was 20 mcg (n = 139, IQR 10-100, range 1-100); median phenylephrine dose was 100 mcg (n = 110, IQR 100-100, range 25-10,000). Adverse hemodynamic events occurred in 98 patients (39%); 30 in the phenylephrine group (27%; 95% CI, 19-36%), and 68 in the epinephrine group (50%; 95% CI, 41-58%). Human errors were observed in 47 patients (19%), including 7 patients (3%) experiencing dosing errors (all overdoses; range, 2.5- to 100-fold) and 43 patients (17%) with a documentation error. Only one dosing error occurred when a pharmacist was present.

CONCLUSIONS

Human errors and adverse hemodynamic events were common with the use of push dose pressors in the emergency department. Adverse hemodynamic events were more common than in previous studies. Future research should determine if push dose pressors improve outcomes and if so, how to safely implement them into practice.

Push dose pressors: Experience in critically ill patients outside of the operating room

PURPOSE

Evaluate push dose vasopressor (PDP) practice patterns, efficacy, and safety in critically ill patients.

METHODS

Critically ill patients receiving phenylephrine or ephedrine PDP from November 2015-March 2017 were included. Patient demographics, medication administration details, vital signs pre- and post-administration, adverse effects, and medications errors were collected. Descriptive data are presented and comparisons were made with paired samples t-test, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and Chi-squared analysis or Fisher's Exact Test as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 146 patients (155 PDP events) were included; mean age 64.5 ± 13.3 years and 66.4% males, respiratory failure (39.8%) or sepsis (24.9%) admission diagnosis. The surgical intensive care unit (ICU) (44.5%) and medical ICU (33.6%) used PDPs most often, and during the peri-intubation period (57.3%) or for other transient hypotension (38.2%). Following PDP, mean systolic blood pressure (BP), diastolic BP, and heart rate (HR) increased 32.5% (80 to 106 mmHg), 27.2% (48 to 61 mmHg), and 6.4% (93 to 99 bpm), respectively. There were 17 (11.6%) adverse events; most often related to excessive increases in BP or HR and one incidence of dysrhythmia. Thirteen patients (11.2%) had a dose related medication error (phenylephrine dose >200 μg or ephedrine dose >25 mg), nine (6.2%) received PDP with normal/elevated hemodynamics (systolic BP > 100 mmHg or HR > 160 bpm) and 15% while on a continuous infusion vasopressor.

CONCLUSION

PDPs were used in a variety of patient diagnoses and for select indications. Overall, they were efficacious but associated with adverse drug events and medication errors.

Low-Dose Epinephrine Boluses for Acute Hypotension in the PICU

OBJECTIVES

To describe the use of low-dose bolus epinephrine in critically ill children during an acute hypotensive episode or prearrest condition.

DESIGN

Institutional Review Board approved, single-center, retrospective medical chart review.

SETTING

Large medical-surgical PICU within a freestanding, tertiary care children's hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients admitted to the PICU between June 1, 2015, and June 1, 2016, who received low-dose (≤ 5 µg/kg) IV bolus epinephrine.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four resuscitation episodes (63 doses; 19 patients) were analyzed. Median age and weight of patients were 9 years (interquartile range, 1-15 yr) and 38.5 kg (interquartile range, 12-54.8 kg). Median Pediatric Risk of Mortality III score was 17 (interquartile range, 10-27). Mean epinephrine dose was 1.3 ± 1.1 µg/kg. Median number of doses per patient was two. If more than one dose was provided, median dosing interval was 6.5 minutes. Heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure were compared at the time of epinephrine administration and 1-4 minutes (median = 1 min) following administration. Heart rate changed from 130 ± 41 to 150 ± 33 beats/min (p < 0.05), and mean arterial blood pressure changed from 51 ± 17 to 75 ± 27 mm Hg (p < 0.001). Variability in mean arterial blood pressure response was observed; nonresponders required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; 66% of doses resulted in up to 100% mean arterial blood pressure increase, and 21% of doses resulted in greater than 100% mean arterial blood pressure increase. Doses below 1 µg/kg were associated with a lower mean arterial blood pressure increase than doses between 1 and 5 µg/kg (mean percent change in mean arterial blood pressure = 6.6% vs 60%, respectively). Children less than or equal to 2 years old had the greatest percentage increase in heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of low-dose bolus epinephrine during periods of acute hypotension can result in a significant increase in mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate. This dosing strategy may provide temporary stabilization while other therapies are added or adjusted, but further research is needed.

Physiologic response to pre-arrest bolus dilute epinephrine in the pediatric intensive care unit

AIM

To quantify the physiologic effects of pre-arrest bolus dilute epinephrine in the pediatric intensive care unit.

METHODS

Patients <18 years old and ≥37 weeks gestation who received an intravenous bolus of dilute epinephrine (10 mcg/mL) in the pediatric intensive care units at our institution from January 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if doses exceeded 20 mcg/kg, or under the following circumstances: orders limiting resuscitation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, active chest compressions, simultaneous administration of other blood pressure-altering interventions or documented normotension prior to epinephrine. The primary outcome was change in systolic blood pressure within 5 min of epinephrine. Patients were categorized as non-responders if the change in systolic blood pressure was ≤10 mmHg.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four patients were analyzed. The median index dose was 0.7 mcg/kg (IQR, 0.3-2.0), and the mean increase in systolic blood pressure was 31 mmHg (95% CI, 25-36; P < 0.001). Thirty-nine (27%) patients were classified as non-responders. Compared to responders, non-responders had higher rates of cardiac arrest or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 6 h (26% vs 10%; relative risk, 2.69; 95% CI, 1.21-5.97; P = 0.03), and had higher in-hospital mortality (51% vs 21%; relative risk, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.51-3.96; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of pre-arrest pediatric patients, bolus dilute epinephrine resulted in an increase in systolic blood pressure, and lack of blood pressure response was associated with poor outcomes. Optimal dosing of dilute epinephrine remains unclear.

Effect of co-administration of different doses of phenylephrine with oxytocin on the prevention of oxytocin-induced hypotension in caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia: A randomised comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Co-administration of phenylephrine prevents oxytocin-induced hypotension during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia (SA), but higher doses cause reflex bradycardia. This study compares the effects of co-administration of two different doses of phenylephrine on oxytocin-induced hypotension during caesarean section under SA.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind study, 90 parturients belonging to the American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status 1 or 2, undergoing caesarean section under SA were randomised into Group A: oxytocin 3U and phenylephrine 50 μg, Group B: oxytocin 3U and phenylephrine 75 μg, Group C: oxytocin 3U and normal saline, administered intravenously over 5 min after baby extraction. The incidence of hypotension (the primary outcome), rescue vasopressor requirement and side effects were recorded. Statistical analyses were with analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Demographic parameters such as age, height, weight, level of sensory block at 20 min and duration of surgery were comparable in all the groups. The incidence of hypotension (Group A - 90%, Group B - 10%, Group C - 98%, P = 0.001), magnitude of fall in mean arterial pressure (Group A-15.03 ± 6.12 mm of Hg, Group B - 6.63 ± 4.49 mm of Hg and Group C-13.03 ± 3.39 mm of Hg, P < 0.001) and rescue vasopressor requirement (Group A-45 ± 15.25 mg, Group B-5 ± 15.25, Group C-91.66 ± 26.53, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in Group B compared to A and C.

CONCLUSION

Co-administration of phenylephrine 75 μg with oxytocin 3U reduces the incidence of oxytocin-induced hypotension compared to phenylephrine 50 μg with oxytocin 3U during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia.

Techniques for preventing hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Maternal hypotension is the most frequent complication of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. It can be associated with nausea or vomiting and may pose serious risks to the mother (unconsciousness, pulmonary aspiration) and baby (hypoxia, acidosis, neurological injury).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic interventions for hypotension following spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, including full texts and abstracts, comparing interventions to prevent hypotension with placebo or alternative treatment in women having spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. We excluded studies if hypotension was not an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data from eligible studies. We report 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 126 studies involving 9565 participants. Interventions were to prevent maternal hypotension following spinal anaesthesia only, and we excluded any interventions considered active treatment. All the included studies reported the review's primary outcome. Across 49 comparisons, we identified three intervention groups: intravenous fluids, pharmacological interventions, and physical interventions. Authors reported no serious adverse effects with any of the interventions investigated. Most trials reported hypotension requiring intervention and Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes as the only outcomes. None of the trials included in the comparisons we describe reported admission to neonatal intensive care unit. Crystalloid versus control (no fluids)Fewer women experienced hypotension in the crystalloid group compared with no fluids (average risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.98; 370 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between groups in numbers of women with nausea and vomiting (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.91; 1 study; 69 women; very low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (60 babies, low-quality evidence). Colloid versus crystalloidFewer women experienced hypotension in the colloid group compared with the crystalloid group (average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; 2105 women; 28 studies; very low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups for maternal hypertension requiring intervention (average RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.46, 3 studies, 327 women;very low-quality evidence), maternal bradycardia requiring intervention (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.79, 6 studies, 509 women; very low-quality evidence), nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13, 15 studies, 1154 women, I² = 37%; very low-quality evidence), neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.52, 6 studies, 678 babies; very low-quality evidence), or Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes (average RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.05, 11 studies, 826 babies; very low-quality evidence). Ephedrine versus phenylephrineThere were no clear differences between ephedrine and phenylephrine groups for preventing maternal hypotension (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.18; 401 women; 8 studies; very low-quality evidence) or hypertension (average RR 1.72, 95% CI 0.71 to 4.16, 2 studies, 118 women, low-quality evidence). Rates of bradycardia were lower in the ephedrine group (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.64, 5 studies, 304 women, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in the number of women with nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, 4 studies, 204 women, I² = 37%, very low-quality evidence), or babies with neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.07 to 12.00, 3 studies, 175 babies, low-quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (321 babies; low-quality evidence). Ondansetron versus controlOndansetron administration was more effective than control (placebo saline) for preventing hypotension requiring treatment (average RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), bradycardia requiring treatment (average RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; 740 women, 8 studies, low-quality evidence), and nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.51; 653 women, 7 studies, low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of neonatal acidosis (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.09; 134 babies; 2 studies, low-quality evidence) or Apgar scores of less than 8 at five minutes (284 babies, low-quality evidence). Lower limb compression versus controlLower limb compression was more effective than control for preventing hypotension (average RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.78, 11 studies, 705 women, I² = 65%, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference between the groups in rates of bradycardia (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.56, 1 study, 74 women, very low-quality evidence) or nausea and/or vomiting (average RR 0.42 , 95% CI 0.14 to 1.27, 4 studies, 276 women, I² = 32%, very-low quality evidence). No baby had an Apgar score of less than 8 at five minutes in either group (130 babies, very low-quality evidence). Walking versus lyingThere was no clear difference between the groups for women with hypotension requiring treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.21, 1 study, 37 women, very low-quality evidence).Many included studies reported little to no information that would allow an assessment of their risk of bias, limiting our ability to draw meaningful conclusions. GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. We downgraded evidence for limitations in study design, imprecision, and indirectness; most studies assessed only women scheduled for elective caesarean sections.External validity also needs consideration. Readers should question the use of colloids in this context given the serious potential side effects such as allergy and renal failure associated with their administration.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While interventions such as crystalloids, colloids, ephedrine, phenylephrine, ondansetron, or lower leg compression can reduce the incidence of hypotension, none have been shown to eliminate the need to treat maternal hypotension in some women. We cannot draw any conclusions regarding rare adverse effects associated with use of the interventions (for example colloids) due to the relatively small numbers of women studied.

Bolus dose of epinephrine for refractory post-arrest hypotension

Post-cardiac arrest hypotension is associated with worse outcomes. However, a significant proportion of patients may not be responsive to intravenous (IV) fluids, and vasopressor infusions require significant time to initiate. This case series describes the successful use of a bolus dose of epinephrine to rapidly treat IV fluid refractory hypotension among three patients in the post-arrest period. A bolus dose of epinephrine may be considered as a treatment for post-arrest hypotension that does not respond to IV fluids, but further studies should be performed prior to routine use.

Reducing by 50% the incidence of maternal hypotension during elective caesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia: Effect of prophylactic ondansetron and/or continuous infusion of phenylephrine - a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial

Background:

Prophylactic administrations of ondansetron or phenylephrine have been reported to provide a protective effect against hypotension in women undergoing cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia (SA). The main hypothesis is that ondansetron improves the hemodynamic response, especially combined with phenylephrine infusion.

Methods:

This prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study included 265 healthy pregnant women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under SA. Women were randomly allocated into four groups to receive either placebo (control), ondansetron (O) 8 mg intravenously before induction of SA, phenylephrine infusion (50 mcg/min) (P) or ondansetron plus phenylephrine (OP). Demographic, obstetric, intraoperative timing, and anesthetic variables were assessed at 16 time points. Anesthetic variables assessed included blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, nausea, vomiting, electrocardiographic changes, skin flushing, discomfort or pruritus, and vasopressor requirements.

Results:

There were differences (P = 0.0001) in the number of patients with hypotension (50.8% control, 44.6% O, 20.9% P, 25.0% OP), the percentage of time points (P = 0.0001) with systolic hypotension per patient (17.4% control, 8.7% O, 2.1% P, 6.7% OP) and the number of patients requiring supplementary boluses of ephedrine (P = 0.003), phenylephrine (P = 0.017) or atropine (P = 0.0001).

Conclusions:

A 50 μg/min phenylephrine infusion reduces by 50%, the incidence of maternal hypotension compared with placebo, but infusions of phenylephrine are still not routine in our environment. Prophylactic ondansetron 8 mg might be considered in this situation, because it does not reduce the incidence of maternal hypotension but diminishes its severity, reducing the number of hypotensive events per patient by 50%.